Re: The State of the Evidence in the HelioCenrtic/GeoCentric Debate Conveniently Forgotten by Friar Broccoli

On Sat, 04 Feb 2012 10:28:11 -0500, the following appeared
in talk.origins, posted by T Pagano <not.valid@xxxxxxxxxxx>:

Atheists and those who have been misled by them are under the delusion
that heliocentricism is indubitable.

Is that *only* "atheists and those who have been misled by
them", Tony? Does that include the Jesuits? And I see you
continue to attempt to tilt the debate away from science and
toward semantics by using words such as "indubitable".
You've been told several times that science doesn't "prove"
things (which is what "indubitable" would imply); it
addresses the available evidence and formulates testable
hypotheses which explain the existing data and predict what
additional data will reveal. That evidence, and those
hypotheses (now theories) fully account for *all* of the
available data. Geocentrism does not.

Nonsense. From the very start
Copernicus's theory required only a few less epicycles than did
Ptolomey's.

Really? Let's see...

"ep·i·cy·cle (µp?¹-sº?k?l) n. 1. In Ptolemaic cosmology, a
small circle, the center of which moves on the circumference
of a larger circle at whose center is Earth and the
circumference of which describes the orbit of one of the
planets around Earth."

Perhaps you could tell us what epicycles Copernican
astronomy uses? Are you perhaps confused, and are referring
to Luna?

The vast majority of evidence cannot distinquish between the two
models. And none of the evidence contradicts GeoCentricism.

"Contradicts"? Perhaps not, but you'll have to explain, for
only one thing of several, how if the Earth doesn't rotate
everything beyond approximately the orbit of Neptune travels
at greater than c, which would as a minimum violate SR. Good
luck...

<snip the usual Tony maunderings>
--

Bob C.

"Evidence confirming an observation is
evidence that the observation is wrong."
- McNameless

.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Punch-Drunk Pagano runs from those pesky little questions
    ... by the earth is coincident with the centre of mass frame of the universe ... He wouldn't be merely invoking items for which there is no evidence, he'd be invoking items CONTRADICTED by the evidence. ... I suspect the real answer is simple: Tony is an epistemological nihilist, so he doesn't see why things like evidence and reality should trump his pet fantasies. ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: Recap of the NON evidence for a fixed and non-rotating Earth
    ... You've yet to explain how a moving satellite stays in the same place ... relative to a stationary Earth. ... So, Tony, exactly how does a satellite hang ... "Evidence confirming an observation is ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: Non-Literal Literalism
    ... They have what they believe is evidence ... that the earth is young. ... and biological evolution. ... overwhelming majority of scientists who work in these fields and are ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: Making money from Java
    ... >> rather than to a Biblical flood exposing people to radiation. ... > covered and protected the earth, and that this covering was destroyed at the ... >> geological processes are insufficient to have swept that evidence away. ... >>> Fossils don't form under normal circumstances. ...
    (comp.lang.cobol)
  • Re: Non-Literal Literalism
    ... They have what they believe is evidence ... that the earth is young. ... and biological evolution. ... overwhelming majority of scientists who work in these fields and are ...
    (talk.origins)